Separation of powers koan for the day: How can you have a Unitary Executive when Congress can abolish an executive agency at any time?
Posted by dj moonbat at January 20, 2006 06:50 AMIs anyone interested in being an adult chaperone for a college Wesley Fountaion (United Methodist fellowship) Spring Break work trip to New Orleans?
Email me if you're interested.
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 20, 2006 06:53 AMWhat separation of powers????
Executive Branch controlled by right-wing extremist christian conservatives.
Legislative Branch controlled by right-wing extremist christian conservatives.
Judicial Branch soon to be controlled by right-wing extremist christian conservatives.
That's separation of powers?
Posted by Cookie Monster at January 20, 2006 06:55 AMNo one get themselves worked up, but I could have sworn I heard Specter's gravelly voice stating that he was voting against Alito last night coming home from evening class. But it's not true.
I suppose highway noise can make people hear what they want to.
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 20, 2006 07:30 AMIdiosynchronic,
Try to ignore the voices in your head. Alito is a done deal.
Posted by caliman at January 20, 2006 08:05 AMSee, I tell you all my moment of sonically induced altered reality, and y'all get worked up.
Some people just can't converse without throwing shit.
Posted by idiosynchronic at January 20, 2006 08:21 AMidio, I do not think Alito is a done deal.
I think we need to continue to call Congress.
He cannot be confirmed. There are many Republicans in Congress who do not want a "Unitary Executive" - I think that we still have a chance.
That is the eternal optimist in me. There is hope. (btw, I did immediately go to Specter's site to see if he released a statement after reading your post...no such statement, I guess that I too should not listen to the voices in your head.)
There is a hell of a hearing thanks to Conyers on the SPAN re: the NSA spying.
If anyone can stream it, I highly recommend. Unless of course, like me, you are still in pjs and can watch it live.
Posted by Anjha at January 20, 2006 08:35 AMThat's right, Anjha, rub it in with the pjs as I yawn and doze next to the copy machine.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 20, 2006 08:47 AMPakistan "doctor" Nadeem Hasaan was not allowed to re-enter the U.S. because of alleged terrorist ties. He is tall, and resembles Bin Laden. I used to tell him to stay away from airports. I fired him, after he missed a simple medical problem, and almost killed me. Could this have been a mini-terrorist attack? They stopped him at J.F.K.,before he could fly back home to Phoenix, yesterday. Anyone out there know what they did with him?
Posted by TIKI AL at January 20, 2006 08:58 AMTIKI AL, homeboy, here it is!
Posted by bbtb at January 20, 2006 09:10 AMThat's right, Anjha, rub it in with the pjs as I yawn and doze next to the copy machine.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 20, 2006 08:47 AM
AND, I'm all fired up on steroids today. Prednisone is good for mania.
I have a pile of dishes, a pile of laundry and a pile of crap to clean up. Also, a pile of oatmeal to eat. (Let's just hope I get none of those piles and what to do with them mixed up.)
I will be going into the office today.
Don'tya know - one day of meds and now I'm cured again! Oh, miracle of all miracles.
(catch me tomorrow after having done too much today, vomiting and laying in my big chair.)
TIKI Al, I heard the local news interview his Dad, he said "They sent him to my home country, Pakistan". Some shit, huh! A taxpaying Dr. in this country. Because he a leader of his mosque, he's labeled and outed. He was on pilgrimage for heaven's sake, now he can't re-enter the country.
Posted by bbtb at January 20, 2006 09:17 AMThis is just a thought, but if a Shiite coalition of some sort rules Iraq, presumably under the guidance of Iran, the US may just have to support Syria if a Sunni-Shiite civil war breaks out.
That would cause great angst among the hawks in the administration, not to mention what it would do to US-Lebanese relations.
So, we have a remodeled Middle East, with a powerful Iran-Iraq theocratic block, a US-backed Syrian government, a really pissed off Lebanon, and Israel will have to be put on a massive national Valium program. You're doin' a great job, Georgie.
And in other news, Laura Bush, or rather Georgie, has categorically denied she has any aspirations for the US Senate. Rumor has it, she is reportedly interested in the position of Attorney General, where you are appointed, and can cause much more havoc than a mere Senator, with no fear of elections or breaking the law.
Either that, or she will return to teaching 11-year old Ugandan gang-rape victims the virtues of abstinence to avoid HIV. She was quite sincere when she mentioned condoms being totally unsafe as they occasionally break.
When questioned about the alarming increase in oral sex amongst American teenagers, the First Lady replied, "I don't think teens should talk about sex. But, talking is a lot better than actually having it. It's yucky, believe me."
Tempus, FAUX News
Posted by tempus at January 20, 2006 09:38 AMSuch a cunning linguist, you are, Tempus!
Posted by bbtb at January 20, 2006 09:48 AMOh, and I think Osama's recent announcement is simply to remind Americans he is alive, and seriously thinking about running for the US House of Representatives, based on his record of not taking bribes, doing what he promises, teaching nothing but religion in schools, and his absolute rejection of evolution. He will have to run as a Kansas Republican of course.
Posted by tempus at January 20, 2006 09:52 AMJust saw this from one of the commentors on Think Progress:
Bushco says that so long as we american citizens have nothing to hide, then we shouldn’t object to their listening in on all our phone calls and reading all our e-mail.
Funny how when we use the same reasoning to ask for information reguarding VP Cheney’s secret energy meetings, NSA warrentless searches, and this - bushco’s ties to an admitted felon Abramhoff, that bushco says no way!
Why is it OK for them in the one instance, but not OK for us in the other. What are they hiding Gary? You can’t have it both ways. One is right or the other. You pick which one is correct.
It points out the inherent hypocrisy of the Bush administration quite well, I think. The strict father model: "do as I say, not as I do."
Posted by ann at January 20, 2006 10:09 AMThere is a hell of a hearing thanks to Conyers on the SPAN re: the NSA spying.
I agree--caught a bit of this and it's great. They are shooting down all Bush's arguments, basically saying that any argument he has leads to unrestricted presidential power. He could decide to steal cars and say it's ok, as long as it's part of the war on terror. He is claiming sole discretion in deciding who is a terrorist (they only spy on Americans who are talking to terrorists, right?) And they pointed out that not once has Bush said where the limits are. When asked if there were limits, he apparently responded well, I'm not a dictator. Scary.
Posted by CG at January 20, 2006 10:27 AMThe strict father model:
I stopped listening to my father when he started beating my mother.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 20, 2006 10:37 AMVery good point Ann.
Everytime I hear someone say "It's not a problem if you don't have anything to hide" I respond, "That's beside the point but if you believe that then there is no reason for the Bush administration not to release all the documentation from Cheney's Energy Task force. Right? What do they have to hide?"
If the right to live free of unreasonable search and seizure is viewed in the light that a person with nothing to hide has no need for a right to privacy then that means that we only have a right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure to protect people with something to hide!
If you subscribe to that opinion then you are saying that the 4th Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights to protect people with something to hide.
That's hogwash.
Posted by snark at January 20, 2006 10:38 AM"It's not a problem if you don't have anything to hide"
Also, who knows what they would deem problematic? They claim they want google searches to fight child pornography. Well, I work in a school for early childhood education - want to bet some of our research staff has ever googled "spanking?" Can you imaggine the fall out if one of our researchers came up as a suspected child pornographer? Just trying to prove their innocence would condemn them and destroy their career.
Posted by ann at January 20, 2006 10:42 AMOT-Wanted to send out my thanks to pessimist for his voluminous work while Steve was away.
Posted by bbtb at January 20, 2006 10:47 AMYes, the simple association of one's name with an accusation of such abhorrant behavior is a stain not easily washed away even if the accusation proves baseless.
Posted by snark at January 20, 2006 10:48 AMIsn't it about time that Bush stopped campaigning and started governing? Oh, never mind. Silly idea to expect him to do his job.
Posted by ann at January 20, 2006 11:29 AMMan, interesting thoughts by dipshit on the previous thread. He comes by his moniker honestly.
One thing I am pleased about is that Bill Clinton is still President. If he committed an illegal act under Echelon (and he did not) we can impeach him......OH FUCK! Clinton is no longer President. This means we can only focus on the illegal acts of the current pretzledent. AMAZING!
I do like the idiot neo-con logic that two wrongs must = a right. Stoopid fucks, each and everyone of them.
PS Dipshit:
In a previous post I remember seeing you say, "I want some C4, to teach these fuckers a lesson!" and "God, I love being terrorist!" I think I know what you mean, and it was harmless. But if the NSA trolls by here they might electronically read your statements...and this could create some big problems for you, especially given that your statements appear to be those of an enemy combatant. It's okay, these searches have to go before a judge to verify the appropriateness of the search, and...OH SHIT! You're okay! I'm sure of it. At least we don't use torture in the facilities you'll be housed in.
Posted by phidipides at January 20, 2006 11:31 AMWhat's going on with Fitzgerald? Anyone heard anything lately?
Posted by CG at January 20, 2006 11:34 AMre: Fitzgerald
I think that Fitzgerald is also involved in the corruption trial of former Illinois Governor George Ryan and that may be taking up a good bit of his time these days.
Posted by ann at January 20, 2006 11:45 AMThanks
Posted by CG at January 20, 2006 12:38 PMDows down about 200 points today.
Hurry. Go tell all the homeless people you know that there are some good values out there for the taking. Tell 'em soon so they have all weekend to panhandle for some loose change to invest.
Posted by snark at January 20, 2006 12:55 PMAnn, or if someone was doing a research project on child pornography.
Posted by Judith at January 20, 2006 05:15 PMJudith, Pete Townsend of "The Who", said that same thing when he got busted, it didn't help!
Posted by bbtb at January 20, 2006 05:22 PMI am going to try to ignore the trolls. However, my parting question to Carp is why do you believe that liberals hate America? What do you base that belief on. When you are ready to give me a legitimate answer, let me know.
Oaklander, I am very disturbed by any organization or company that gives out my personal information without my knowledge or permission. We have become a Country where our personal lives are continuously being invaded by those who seek personal information. When I am asked to give my phone number, I refuse or give a phony number. When asked what my social security number is, I tell the person asking that I will not give them the account number to my retirement fund, and in fact, it is illegal for you to ask. Google has challenged the Justice Department on behalf of those of us who use their site, and justifiably so.
In case anyone here did not know this.
"Federal law protects you from being compelled, even by the state, to use your Social Security number for identification purposes, and substantial risks are involved in giving out your confidential Federal Retirement Account Number to everyone who asks."
Posted by Judith at January 20, 2006 05:23 PMWe have become a Country where our personal lives are continuously being invaded by those who seek personal information.
Your comment made me think, Judith. My brother, the Bush supporter, gets angry when salespeople request his phone number. He also doesn't like to use those value cards that all the grocery stores have for sale items. Yet, he's okey-dokey with the government spying on him.
Posted by ann at January 20, 2006 05:44 PMAnn, I love using those value cards, in fact when someone doesn't have one, I volunteer mine. Hopefully, I'll mess with some NSA geek's head!
Judith, I also loved Steve finding out who that fool was. I wish he did that a few weeks ago when that anon person was being a pest.
Posted by bbtb at January 20, 2006 05:57 PMI wish he did that a few weeks ago when that anon person was being a pest.
Avaroo often posts anonomously. I think that was probably him.
Posted by snark at January 20, 2006 06:29 PMbbtb: (East L.A. homey) Thanks for the link on Hasaan. I found it very interesting, having had a c-scope shoved up my butt by an alleged terrorist. I don't have any knowledge of his alleged ties to terrorists, (Phoenix F.B.I.-I know you are reading this, so it should save you a trip to my house), but by his performance as a doctor, I don't think he had any ties to a medical school.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 20, 2006 07:25 PMDude, You were in Buckeye not Avondale. Man we got to hook up for a drink or something and talk politics.
Posted by bbtb at January 20, 2006 08:54 PMWell Ann, your Brother and mine are both hypocrits, hate to say. Your right, your Brother doesn't mine the possibility of being spied on, but god darn, don't ask for his phone number. What a joke. My Brother, as you well know, is exactly the same way. He will argue about his right this and his right that, and then turn around and vote for Bush.
Posted by Judith at January 21, 2006 05:09 AMand then my Mom will shake her head and say "where did I go wrong." LOL
Posted by Judith at January 21, 2006 05:11 AM